First it was ad replacement, then it was a patreon thing that took donations (illegally) for third parties that didn't want it, then it was ad blocking, then it was a search engine, then it was videoconferencing....
What exactly is their revenue model?
Cutting revenue for those who make the Web wonderful is not ideal, so an alternative approach was needed to help those who creator the content that keeps us 'coming back' to the Web. This is where Brave Rewards came in, and Brave's User Growth Pool. We distributed BAT to our users, inviting them to ear-mark it for the creators they appreciated most. Some of those creators signed-up to claim our tokens, while others didn't.
From the start, Brave has been focused on privacy, security, and sustainability. In the vein of privacy, we introduced Brave Search. An engine with its own index, not connected to you or your online activities, existing only to help you find what you're seeking on the Web.
Our revenue model is largely ad-based, but quite different from the ads we all have come accustomed to on the Web. Brave's Ad model is consent-based, user-configurable (you control ad-frequencies, etc.), and private-by-design. Rather than sending your data off to third-parties, we send regional ad catalogs to you. These are studied in the private enclave of your machine so that your data is never transmitted elsewhere. When users participate in Brave Ads, they receive 70% of the associated revenue (for their attention). Brave gets the remaining 30%.
I hope this helps
How can you be so disingenuous? You removed ads, then introduced your own advertising. You may see those as two separate events, but the consequence is the same as if you had chosen to replace ads.
But perhaps this first reading wasn't the proper exegesis; perhaps the author meant only "Brave blocks Google's ads, and has created its own advertising model in its place." If that's the intended understanding, then yes, that's correct. Google's ads are privacy-leaches who parasitically attack to non-consenting hosts, sucking as much data out as possible.
Brave Ads replaces Google Ads. Brave Ads is based on consent, privacy, and equity. With Brave Ads, you have to opt-in to participate. If/when you do, you receive 70% of the revenue, and you share [no data] in the process. Google's model is quite the opposite; you don't opt-in, you don't get revenue, and your data is piped out to a third-party where it is sold, rented, and/or amended onto whatever profile exists for you on the Web.
Yes, Brave replaces Google
I agree. Although I'm sure it's clear that I believe "replace" is semantically compatible with "remove advertisements from X, instead serving ads from Y in a different location".
>perhaps the author meant only "Brave blocks Google's ads, and has created its own advertising model in its place."
This was my interpretation.
>Brave Ads replaces Google Ads.
I guess we both agree that "replace" is within the semantic range. Which is why "We never replace ads." didn't sit well.
For what it is worth, I'm neither for nor against Brave. Just surprised about how vigorous Brave employees are being in the thread.
>Google's model is quite the opposite
Don't worry, I'm not on the Google train either.
Brave is definitely working hard to replace that which doesn't work on the Web, advertising being one such thing. We're pushing for a model that is based on consent, equity, and an a priori commitment to privacy (don't touch the user's data). If we can successfully replace (however you wish to interpret that) Google with such a model, then I'm content
1) non tracking on page 2) tracking on page 3) brave ads
The user can chose to block or allow each. It could be considered Brave replacing them if the default was to not have (2) and have (3) but you have to enable brave rewards yourself. You could say it allows the user to replace the ads but that wouldn't be very specific as the ads are of a different type and value.
On one hand, the features are at least somewhat adjacent to their core business of building a web browser. On the other, whenever Mozilla did something like this they were panned for spreading themselves too thin and diverging from their core mission.
More seriously, I don't think for-profit/non-profit really matters here. Mozilla's reasoning was pretty clear (for better or worse) that they saw these adjacent services as helping to break into the lock-in of Apple/Google/MS who used either their own browser-adjacent services to push their own browsers, or to provide privacy-respecting versions of services (in an attempt to displace, say, Zoom).
I think initiatives like Pocket, Brave Search, Brave Talk, a privacy-respecting ads ecosystem, Vivaldi's Mail/Calendar/RSS setup and integrated barebones Notes module are all pretty much exactly what should happen. There was an article about how using Firefox alone is meaningless: http://dpldocs.info/this-week-in-d/Blog.Posted_2021_09_06.ht...
I'm drawn to agree: The browser alone is a hard sell, a bit like how Steve Jobs said that Dropbox is not a product, but a feature. A browser company needs to provide services for users to stay relevant. Search, notes and communication tools are part and parcel of that. If you're just a window, you're going to die.
As soon as Firefox on mobile isn’t a thing people want to use, desktop Firefox suddenly has a “it won’t sync with your mobile” hill to climb.
Seems they're still trying to figure that out.
EDIT: some of you think we should do only a browser, but we also have a search engine now (https://search.brave.com/). We're going big across privacy and user-agent models that fit together well and provide our users with value in the form of products, also in revenue shares including >= what we make on any opt-in attention economics. Think big, avoid pigeonholing us as some of you did and still do Mozilla. My advice!
Are there any plans to enable installable third party app/extensions with talk.brave like zoom is currently rolling out their app store?
Will definitely shoot you a note when we've got something built. Thanks!